How Can The NFL Have More Meaningful Games

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Since there's not much else going on right now with the Skins, no big announcements looming or anything like that, I wanted to see what ideas everyone has to fix three percieved "problems" with the NFL:

1. Too many pre-season games

2. Playoff teams resting starters in the final games of the seaason

3. How to Expand the NFL to other cities/countries

To fix the later problem, Goodell discussed the possibility of awarding draft picks to teams for playing starters in the final weeks of the season. However, the way i see it, all that would do is help teams that were already good to get better, ultimately hurting parity.

My idea to "fix" these problems is fairly simple:

Expand the Regular Season to 18 games, leaving only 2 pre-season games. There will also be a certain number of "neutral-site" location games per year. As a default, each team will have:

- 1 Pre-Season Home Game
- 8 Regular Season Home Games
- 1 Neutral Site Game

This would mean there would be 16 neutral site games in the NFL every year, which is pretty high. So lets cut that back to 8 neutral site games per year. So, where do the other games go? The 8 teams in the NFL that have the highest win-loss record at the end of the year get an additional home game the next year. This incent teams to win every game possible, as it would result in an extra home game and more revenue for home team. It would reward fans of those home teams as well as all NFL fans, as we'd have fewer crappy games to watch each year.

So, thats my idea. Now its your turn to share your own idea to fix one or all of these "problems" (and also to tell me why mine is stupid).

[Beemnseven]

If you want to make the games more meaningful, you certainly don't add more. The games get less important if the schedule is expanded to 18. Plus with more games, more possibility of injuries to your stars, which means more backups playing.

Ask Major League Baseball about meaningless games...

[MTK]

Honestly I think all of the complaining about teams resting starters is so silly. If you start off 13-0 and have everything locked up, you've earned the right to sit your guys and rest them for the games that really count.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Honestly I think all of the complaining about teams resting starters is so silly. If you start off 13-0 and have everything locked up, you've earned the right to sit your guys and rest them for the games that really count.

I agree 100% with Matty and how great would it be if the Jets ended up knocking the Colts out of the playoffs?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Honestly I think all of the complaining about teams resting starters is so silly. If you start off 13-0 and have everything locked up, you've earned the right to sit your guys and rest them for the games that really count.

I don't think you'd find many Steelers or Texans fans who would agree with you. The Jets got 2 pre-season games in December to get into the playoffs. It screws with the competitive balance of the league IMO. I would like to see the NFL do something to address this but realistically there's no way to force a team to play their starters.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I don't think you'd find many Steelers or Texans fans who would agree with you. The Jets got 2 pre-season games in December to get into the playoffs. It screws with the competitive balance of the league IMO. I would like to see the NFL do something to address this but realistically there's no way to force a team to play their starters.

My problem with the competitive balance argument is this...

People get all up in arms over a team that has home field wrapped up and nothing to play for. But how about a team that is 6-8 with 2 games to go and they've been eliminated from the playoffs. While they may be playing their starters realistically that team has checked out and is just going through the motions. Do you gig that team just as you would for gigging the 14-0 team that is resting their guys? One team is playing their starters, one isn't, same results. A team that isn't going all out to win a game.

In the end I believe it all comes out in the wash. The good teams make the playoffs, the bad ones don't, and the ones on the fence really only have themselves to blame.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

My problem with the competitive balance argument is this...

People get all up in arms over a team that has home field wrapped up and nothing to play for. But how about a team that is 6-8 with 2 games to go and they've been eliminated from the playoffs. While they may be playing their starters realistically that team has checked out and is just going through the motions. Do you gig that team just as you would for gigging the 14-0 team that is resting their guys? One team is playing their starters, one isn't, same results. A team that isn't going all out to win a game.

In the end I believe it all comes out in the wash. The good teams make the playoffs, the bad ones don't, and the ones on the fence really only have themselves to blame.

except when we lose to the chargers second and thrid teir guys

i like the league the way it is right now, , the one thing they could do is charge less for the preseason as a season ticket holder i think it is a big effing joke to pay full price for a terrible preseason game, i couldn't even give them away this year

and as far as taking it overseas and into different countires f that, i would be pissed if the skins lost a home game so they could play in englan witha bunch on fguys who don't really give a rat ass about the teams playing watching

if it ain't broke don't fix it

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I don't think you'd find many Steelers or Texans fans who would agree with you. The Jets got 2 pre-season games in December to get into the playoffs. It screws with the competitive balance of the league IMO. I would like to see the NFL do something to address this but realistically there's no way to force a team to play their starters.

Maybe the Steelers should have helped themself and not relied on another team to get them into the playoffs. Its their fault for loosing 5 games in a row.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Maybe the Steelers should have helped themself and not relied on another team to get them into the playoffs. Its their fault for loosing 5 games in a row.

Yeah, I completely get that and you're right. I just don't like to see a team like the Jets get into the playoffs when they didn't really "earn it". At the end of the day though, you're right, if you take care of business in October and November it makes December moot.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Yeah, I completely get that and you're right. I just don't like to see a team like the Jets get into the playoffs when they didn't really "earn it". At the end of the day though, you're right, if you take care of business in October and November it makes December moot.

The Jets are in so they earned it in my mind.

Only 12 of 32 teams make the playoffs, it's not an easy thing to do so I don't buy this stuff about teams "backing in" or not "earning it". It's a long grind of a season, teams have plenty of chances to prove their worth. Who else deserved to get in over the Jets?

[WaldSkins]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I don't think you'd find many Steelers or Texans fans who would agree with you. The Jets got 2 pre-season games in December to get into the playoffs. It screws with the competitive balance of the league IMO. I would like to see the NFL do something to address this but realistically there's no way to force a team to play their starters.

The Steelers also had a 5 game losing streak that included loses to the Browns,Chiefs, and Raiders so i don't wanna here anything from Lamar Woodley about teams having it in for them.

[Dirtbag59]

By hiring Vinny Cerrato in the league office! He'll always select the best game available and better yet he'll make sure no one gets hurt! Why you ask, because Vinny has long been a proponent of 7 on 7 football. Why just look at his drafts.

[Lotus]

1. Preseason games: just cut 'em
2. Meaningless games: make the season 3 games long. Then all of the games will count!
3. Expansion to other cities/countries: who cares?

[SmootSmack]

I thought it was kind of interesting how the Colts wanted to rest their starters and not worry about going 16-0..yet they had no problem playing Wayne and Clark in blizzard like conditions last weekend to get some individual stats

I think the NFL should consider allowing teams to expand rosters once they've clinched a playoff spot

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I thought it was kind of interesting how the Colts wanted to rest their starters and not worry about going 16-0..yet they had no problem playing Wayne and Clark in blizzard like conditions last weekend to get some individual stats

I think the NFL should consider allowing teams to expand rosters once they've clinched a playoff spot

I'd say rosters should be expanded all around. 45 on the game-day roster simply isnt enough. 53 doesnt appear to be enough for active rosters either.

In theory, I understand limiting the number of players keeps the overall talent in the league higher. In practice, it doesnt work that way. practice squad players are snatched up and dropped so much that they can't truly be developed. players get injured and their replacements are often picked up "off the street" mid-season because a team wants a player thats familiar with their system - even though he wasn't good enough to make any teams practice squad.

The practice squad should be done away with entirely. Teams should have rosters of 60 or 61 and all of them should be able to be active on gameday.